Hillary – on the attack? I hope so.
Anybody who has been following this election cycle on the “television set”, will have noticed that pundits bestow the honour of being “famously opposed to negative campaigns” on the voters of virtually any state quite liberally. Negative campaigns have been very successful in the past (in Texas, for instance, the most horrendous smear campaigns have proven frighteningly effective), but, to state the obvious: not all attack campaigns are equal. When Hillary attacks, she doesn’t do herself any favours.
An Obama attack, for instance, consists of the fresh-faced junior senator respectfully lumping his opponent into the corner of outdated, divisive, cynical politics, that the country doesn’t need at this crucial time – the kind of attack that makes you feel all warm inside. When Obama takes off his gloves, for lack of a better metaphor, he is wearing a fuzzy pair of mittens underneath them.
Hillary, on the other hand, as her campaign never tires of pointing out, is battle-tested, battle-hardened, battle-hungry, ready to battle it out with 100 million dollars in her battle chest. Hillary was in the White House during one of the worst periods of mudslinging and remorseless political throttling America has seen, but the lessons she has drawn from that period, and the skills she developed in response, have, as of yet, served her badly in this campaign.
Obama, on the other hand, has made good use of Hillary’s willingness to attack. One of the crucial moments of this campaign, as far as I’m concerned, was the Democratic debate of Oct. 31. Before the debate, Hillary was comfortably ahead of Obama in all important states, and Obama promised to draw important distinctions between himself and his opponent. Prior to the occasion, the event was hyped as Obama finally “going on the attack”; what happened was slightly different. Obama did exactly what he said he would, he drew distinctions. John Edwards, on the other hand, laid into Clinton, calling her out on her corporate backing and her Iran vote, amongst other things. Obama had played a very smart hand, it seems, he let Edwards go on the attack, and left Hillary feeling embattled.
Hillary, feeling comfort in her embattlement, reflexively went on the counter-attack in the weeks to come. However, since Edwards, the real aggressor, was never a threat in the polls, she went after Barack Obama. Members of her campaign staff, highlighted Obama’s Muslim background, his admittance to past drug use (drawing connections with his views on the disparity between crack and powder cocaine laws), in what seemed like a coordinated smear campaigns of made and withdrawn statements (withdrawn attack statements were to become one of the main political trends this election season).
The attacks were counterproductive, especially among the black electorate. Hillary’s advisers honourable mentions of Obama’s Muslim background, and their allegations that Obama might also have “dealt drugs” during his teenage years, were widely seen as racist. This can’t have appealed to the very liberal voters in Iowa either, it occurs to me. During this period of attacks, Obama remained calm, and, more than ever, stuck to his positive and hopeful shtick; he stayed above the fray and created a very favourable climate for himself.
Despite what the sensationalist media might say, this campaign is still an uphill battle for Obama. Until Obama wins New Hampshire, this is still Hillary’s race to lose. Fortunately for Obama, Hillary’s campaign is preparing to “get nasty” (at least according to Hillary’s top aide, the unbelievably pigheaded Mark Penn). This comes as somewhat of a surprise, after what seemed like an attempt at dignity and humility in her concession speech after the Iowa caucus yesterday.
Unless Hillary’s camp has any substantial new dirt on Obama, this battle cry from within her ranks looks like the prolonged use of a failed strategy. Obama has high positive ratings, voters won’t appreciate another smear campaign against him, to the contrary, such a campaign might well feed his “different type of politics” gimmick, if he manages to stay above the fray. When Hillary’s campaign takes off its gloves, it harms itself. The gloves on her campaign, are similar to the gloves put on patients on suicide watch; you know… the gloves you can’t hold razorblades with.
If he doesn’t have any residual skeletons in his closet, Obama must really Hope that Hillary does indeed go after him.
